Liam Neeson's use of the soundbite 'love is love', like the term 'equal marriage', is both meaningless and disingenuous.

Does he then mean that love is determined by what we think it means, rather than by an objective standard recognised down the ages?

If so, who can deny polygamy, polyamory, incest or any other form of 'love' people decide to want in future?

Indeed, this is already being borne out by a push for those very things in the US, to say nothing of a 'softening-up' process there in favour of paedophilia.

Those in favour of so-called 'equal marriage' and those who by their silence acquiesce need to know that the aim of LGBT activists from the start has been not to allow same-sex marriage per se, but to destroy the institution of marriage in order to allow a sexual free-for-all, which will inevitably destroy our civilisation, as the atheist author JD Unwin found to his surprise when he studied the rise and fall of civilisations over the centuries.

And another gay activist said as far back as 1973 that the campaign "is to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, when granted, to redefine the institution completely - to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution".